The Cornucopia of Formal-Ontological Relations

Smith, Barry; Grenon, Pierre

doi:10.1111/j.1746-8361.2004.tb00305.x

Cited by 88 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The entities that correspond to the abstract and quasi-abstract entity models are absent from BFO 1.0 and its specifications used for the pilot study. The same applies to relations, i.e., the left italicized part of the relational configurations: some of these are mentioned in the specifications, but not defined; others are defined by the authors of BFO elsewhere (Smith et al 2005;Smith and Grenon 2004). Finally, some relations such as agentive participation and causality that would seem intuitive (at least from the conceptual and lexico-semantic analysis perspectives) are also absent from BFO.…”

Section: Application Difficultiesmentioning

confidence: 87%

An ontological framework for modeling the contents of definitions

Seppälä¹

2015

TERM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses the troublesome question of feature selection and content prediction in definition writing. I present the basis of definition-authoring tools that can be used across a range of contexts, independently of the domain and language of the definitions. In addition to being domain-and languageindependent, these tools should be easily tailorable to specific domains. Thus, my work seeks to contribute to developing generic definition-writing aids that can be tailored to a range of different contexts and domains. The objectives of this article are: (1) to show that it is possible to create implementable generic definition models; (2) to show how to constrain these models to produce definitions relevant to particular contexts; and (3) to propose an ontological analysis framework with a fixed and well-motivated descriptive vocabulary that can be used in further content analysis studies in terminology and to enhance integration of textual definitions in ontologies.

show abstract

Section: Application Difficultiesmentioning

confidence: 87%

An ontological framework for modeling the contents of definitions

Seppälä¹

2015

TERM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But philosophy is also a public matter and there are thorny issues as to the metaphysical nature of concepts themselves. This poses problems for the introduction of a creation relation (and variants, see Smith and Grenon 2004) for instance because it is often indeterminate whether a given concept should be described as having been created anew by a given philosopher or, rather, appropriated or rediscovered. For these and similar reasons we confine ourselves here to documenting the relation of working on.…”

Section: Work On Philosophical Entitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Foundations of an ontology of philosophy

Grenon

2009

Synthese

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We describe an ontology of philosophy that is designed to aid navigation through philosophical literature, including literature in the form of encyclopedia articles and textbooks and in both printed and digital forms. The ontology is designed also to serve integration and structuring of data pertaining to the philosophical literature, and in the long term also to support reasoning about the provenance and contents of such literature, by providing a representation of the philosophical domain that is oriented around what philosophical literature is about. Keywords Ontology · PhilosophyWe take philosophy to be a field of human activity which leads to the creation of entities of a certain special kind: philosophical entities, including philosophical concepts, theories, doctrines, arguments, and methodologies. For our purposes here, what makes these entities philosophical is the fact that they are results or outcomes of philosophical activity. What makes such activity philosophical is something which, for our present purposes, can be seen as being primitive and thus undefined. Thus, we will not enter the debate as to what distinguishes philosophical entities from other entities of similar kinds (for example scientific ones). We merely assume that philosophical activity defines a domain in which we find philosophical entities, and we devote our attention to the question of what kinds of philosophical entities there are and how they are interrelated.The development of ontologies on the part of natural scientists and of knowledge system engineers has become common practice. The results of their work are used as

show abstract

“…As shown in more detailed form in [47], SNAP and SPAN portions of the BFO's ontology can stand to one another in the following general ways: …”

Section: Specific Kinds Of Snap and Span Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%